When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

hi everyone

does anyone know when the 2007 standard will be fully supported (and
working properly) in gcc-ada? does anyone publish a timetable?

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Martin Krischik]

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

> does anyone know when the 2007 standard will be fully supported (and
> working properly) in gcc-ada? does anyone publish a timetable?

Be fair: Not even C 99 is "working properly" in the gcc nor is there a
timetable when it will - so why should there be one for Ada - it's a free
as in "free beer" compiler after all.

However - if you are prepared to pay the ￜ15.000 per year per 5 programmers
for GNAT/Pro then there is a timetable - after all you pay good money for
it. And this timetable says that GNAT/Pro 6.0.1 - which has been released a
few month ago - fully supports Ada. And if something is not "working
properly" in GNAT/Pro you issue a bug report. That's what you pay the money
for.

For those who use the  free as in "free beer" compiler: The just released
GCC 4.2.0 and GNAT/GPL allready got pretty much all the Ada 2007 features.
You can download both at The GNU Ada Project [1].

Martin

[1] http://gnuada.sf.net
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 22:04 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:
> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> 
> > does anyone know when the 2007 standard will be fully supported (and
> > working properly) in gcc-ada? does anyone publish a timetable?
> 
> Be fair: Not even C 99 is "working properly" in the gcc nor is there a
> timetable when it will - so why should there be one for Ada - it's a free
> as in "free beer" compiler after all.

No, GCC isn't a free beer compiler. The compiler is GPLed!
The libraries carry a license exception permitting use
of unchanged library items in both open and closed source
programs at no cost.

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Martin Krischik]

Georg Bauhaus schrieb:
> On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 22:04 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:
>> Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>>
>>> does anyone know when the 2007 standard will be fully supported (and
>>> working properly) in gcc-ada? does anyone publish a timetable?

>> Be fair: Not even C 99 is "working properly" in the gcc nor is there a
>> timetable when it will - so why should there be one for Ada - it's a free
>> as in "free beer" compiler after all.

> No, GCC isn't a free beer compiler. The compiler is GPLed!

Shure it is: Unlike GNAT/Pro I can download the GCC for free from 
http://gcc.gnu.org.

And GPL for an executable is no restriction. There is no *relevant* 
difference between GPL vs. LGPL vs. MGPL for an exe - only for dll's and 
lib's it make a *relevant* difference.

> The libraries carry a license exception permitting use
> of unchanged library items in both open and closed source
> programs at no cost.

Right!

Martin
-- 
Martin Krischik

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:55 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:

> And GPL for an executable is no restriction. There is no *relevant* 
> difference between GPL vs. LGPL vs. MGPL for an exe - only for dll's and 
> lib's it make a *relevant* difference.

No no no, saying it this way is almost dangerous, and certainly
misleading!

1/ If you get a GCC compiler executable from any 3rd party then this
supplier of the GCC executable must give you the GCC sources on
request (unless usually supplied with an OS like GNU/Linux I think).
If the GCC executables are spread across linkable object files,
this doesn't make a difference.

2/ If you produce executables *running* GCC as the compiler, then
your product may or may not have to be GPLed on distribution 
depending on whether any purely GPLed source makes it into
your executable. Again, no difference if you distribute your
application across exe, dll, whatever, or if you link pre-built
GPLed(!) libs, etc.  But usually the compiler sources (as opposed
to run-time libraries) aren't translated into object code to become
part of executables (unlike Lisp, say). And this is why GCC can be
a basis for producing closed source programs.

If, referring to exe + dll, lib, etc., you mean the plug-in style
of program:
"If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
function calls to each other and share data structures, we
believe they form a single program, which must be treated as
an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins.
This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with
the non-free main program would violate the GPL."
  -- www.fsf.org/licensing

There is no closed source escape from pure GPL, just like there is
no escape from the terms and conditions of other licenses.
If no part of GCC becomes part of you program, chances are that
only other reasons might force your program to be covered
by the GPL, not that your have run GCC as the compiler.

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Martin Krischik]

Georg Bauhaus schrieb:
> On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:55 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:
> 
>> And GPL for an executable is no restriction. There is no *relevant* 
>> difference between GPL vs. LGPL vs. MGPL for an exe - only for dll's and 
>> lib's it make a *relevant* difference.
> 
> No no no, saying it this way is almost dangerous, and certainly
> misleading!
> 
> 1/ If you get a GCC compiler executable from any 3rd party then this
> supplier of the GCC executable must give you the GCC sources on
> request (unless usually supplied with an OS like GNU/Linux I think).
> If the GCC executables are spread across linkable object files,
> this doesn't make a difference.

And how is that a *relevant* restriction?

> 2/ If you produce executables *running* GCC as the compiler, then
> your product may or may not have to be GPLed on distribution 
> depending on whether any purely GPLed source makes it into
> your executable.  Again, no difference if you distribute your
> application across exe, dll, whatever, or if you link pre-built
> GPLed(!) libs, etc.  But usually the compiler sources (as opposed
> to run-time libraries) aren't translated into object code to become
> part of executables (unlike Lisp, say). And this is why GCC can be
> a basis for producing closed source programs.
> 
> If, referring to exe + dll, lib, etc., you mean the plug-in style
> of program:
> "If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make
> function calls to each other and share data structures, we
> believe they form a single program, which must be treated as
> an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins.
> This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with
> the non-free main program would violate the GPL."
>   -- www.fsf.org/licensing
> 
> There is no closed source escape from pure GPL, just like there is
> no escape from the terms and conditions of other licenses.
> If no part of GCC becomes part of you program, chances are that
> only other reasons might force your program to be covered
> by the GPL, not that your have run GCC as the compiler.

I think you miss understood me. Let's move away from compiler.

Say I use the GPL program K3B to burn a CD/DVD. Does the fact that K3B 
is GPL matter to the licensing of CD/DVD's content? Has the previous 
licence of content changed? No - and why should it?

Other example: you pipe and change some text using a GPL licence sed. Is 
the new text now bound by the GPL. Has the previous licence of content 
changed? No - and why should it?

Using a GPL licence compiler does not make your program bound by the 
GPL. The compiler does not change the licence of files you compile. It's 
that stdio.h or that libglibc.so which may or may not make your program 
bound to the GPL not the compiler.

Martin
-- 
Martin Krischik

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 15:19 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:
> Georg Bauhaus schrieb:
> > On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 13:55 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:
> > 
> >> There is no *relevant* 
> >> difference between GPL vs. LGPL vs. MGPL for an exe - only for dll's and 
> >> lib's it make a *relevant* difference.
> > 
> > If the GCC executables are spread across linkable object files,
> > this doesn't make a difference.
> 
> And how is that a *relevant* restriction?

That's relevant to avoiding (unintended) gossip about .lib or .dll
somehow removing license restrictions--they don't and this could be
a most welcome source of misunderstandings (in fact, has been).


> I think you miss understood me. Let's move away from compiler.

I'm trying to prevent misunderstandings. It is important not to move
away from the compiler in question (GCC) when discussion the licensing
issues with editions of this compiler. GCC reads input and produces
output. Any typical Ada program translated by GCC will call run-time
subprograms using data structures linked to it. So when using GCC as
the compiler, user will have to be aware that there are licenses on
the GNAT run-time. Some editions of GCC display a special exception
(GnuAda, FSF) where the other (AdaCore) doesn't.

A free beer compiler might have licenses quite different from GMGPL
and  still be a free beer compiler; for example, it might permit
making changes to its Ada run-time sources for closed source programs
distributed to 3rd parties. GMGPL does not permit this. (The Eiffel
forum license does; but it always kind of stipulated fair use.)
I find it important to keep the notions apart.

> Using a GPL licence compiler does not make your program bound by the 
> GPL.

Using "GCC" may or it may not make my program be bound by the GPL.
This is what I have been trying to make more precise, as the term
"GCC" is somewhat generic. I don't expect users to consider which
part of the GNAT tool set (a) constitutes the compiler proper and
(b) which parts are used by the preprocessor, compiler, binder,
and linker to produce an executable, or a library. The compiler
does not change the license of input, but it *does* add to the
set of sources required to produce output. Hence it changes the
overall licensing situation.

>  The compiler does not change the licence of files you compile.

Also, GCC doesn't change the license of software that it links
to the executable produced, if any, and so it is important to know
what you can or cannot do using GnuAda or FSF GNAT Ada run-time
sources, which, again, might rely on system libraries and their
respective licenses.


Perhaps we are in violent agreement?

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

thanks indeed Martin and George. you spoke about some of the issues I'm
after. I don't want the GPL version, I'm waiting for the 2007 standard
to be available in gcc-ada. if I've understood Martin then most of the
features should be availble now in 4.2.0.

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Martin Krischik]

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

> thanks indeed Martin and George. you spoke about some of the issues I'm
> after. I don't want the GPL version, I'm waiting for the 2007 standard
> to be available in gcc-ada. if I've understood Martin then most of the
> features should be availble now in 4.2.0.

Indeed. In don't' know if you know how it works:

AdaCore develops GNAT/Pro and GNAT/GPL on and old stable gcc - currently
4.1.x but - and this is the interesting part - they commit the changes
to /trunc - currently 4.3.

GNAT/Pro and GNAT/GPL are reported to have all Ada 2005 features (but if
they are working properly is a different story - as allways with new
features).

4.2.0 is currently in between. So 4.2 will have most of the features but
probably not all. There are no official announcements for 4.2.0 - so it is
all guesswork.

Since AdaCore currently commits there changes to 4.3 I would think that 4.3
is a good candidate for "all features" which "almost work properly".

Again: guesswork. Official Timetables are for paying customers. And I can
understand them: Paying customers put there steak (or frogs) on there
plate ;-) .

Martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

thanks Martin. I suppose we can't complain too much as we're getting a
free ride but it would be very nice indeed if some reputable firms would
make hobbyist and small operation licenses affordable. They shouldn't be
stripped versions of what the big operations get, they should be the same
fully featured versions with different licensing terms. Anyway that's my
thought on the topic.

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Colin Paul Gloster]

In news:7531be2694655d13281ae3aa8b97fbd7@pseudo.borked.net timestamped
Thu, 24 May 2007 16:00:34 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed
<nobody@pseudo.borked.net> posted:
     "thanks Martin. I suppose we can't complain too much as we're getting a
     free ride but it would be very nice indeed if some reputable firms would
     make hobbyist and small operation licenses affordable. They shouldn't be
     stripped versions of what the big operations get, they should be the same
     fully featured versions with different licensing terms. Anyway that's my
     thought on the topic."

Meridian Software (no longer in business); RR Software; and Aonix have
provided cheap Ada compilers for years in addition to their expensive
compilers, but greedy people used gratis GNAT.

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Markus E Leypold]

> In news:7531be2694655d13281ae3aa8b97fbd7@pseudo.borked.net timestamped
> Thu, 24 May 2007 16:00:34 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed
> <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> posted:
>      "thanks Martin. I suppose we can't complain too much as we're getting a
>      free ride but it would be very nice indeed if some reputable firms would
>      make hobbyist and small operation licenses affordable. They shouldn't be
>      stripped versions of what the big operations get, they should be the same
>      fully featured versions with different licensing terms. Anyway that's my
>      thought on the topic."
>
> Meridian Software (no longer in business); RR Software; and Aonix have
> provided cheap Ada compilers for years in addition to their expensive
> compilers, but greedy people used gratis GNAT.

That must be the same greedy uglies that are using free BSD, gratis
Linux, cost-nothing Gcc, always-for-nothing Apache and doesn't-cost
emacs. Not to forget Xfree86 (even the name!).

Hm.

Some people don't get the idea behind community supported software
(AdaCore also doesn't, but that is a different story, just not to
forget to mention my pet peeve here and again).

-- Markus 

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Michael Bode]

Markus E Leypold
<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:

> That must be the same greedy uglies that are using free BSD, gratis
> Linux, cost-nothing Gcc, always-for-nothing Apache and doesn't-cost
> emacs. Not to forget Xfree86 (even the name!).

They are the reason that Microsoft went out of business.

-- 
No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. 
He simply follows the eleventh commandment.
-- R.A. Heinlein

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Markus E Leypold]

> Markus E Leypold
> <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
>
>> That must be the same greedy uglies that are using free BSD, gratis
>> Linux, cost-nothing Gcc, always-for-nothing Apache and doesn't-cost
>> emacs. Not to forget Xfree86 (even the name!).
>
> They are the reason that Microsoft went out of business.

:-)

Im sorry to inform you, that you've made a mistake when operating your
time machine. To travel forward you have to turn the dial labeled
"time axis" to left (!), not to the right. This is admittedly a common
user interface problem, but unavoidable due to the conventions
employed by the Danellians (presently the only retailers of
chrono-technology). You're now in 2007 (approximately).

Nonetheless, I'm glad to hear, that they (MS) will have been gone out
of business (probably correctly: willan on-soon gonan out of
business, if I understand Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Handbook right).

Regards -- Markus

Re: When will 2007 standard be available in gcc-ada?

[Michael Bode]

Markus E Leypold
<development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:

> To travel forward you have to turn the dial labeled
> "time axis" to left (!), not to the right. 

Oh, shit... :-(

-- 
No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. 
He simply follows the eleventh commandment.
-- R.A. Heinlein